 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Photons and exponential falloff in interior seem to work in beta 1 :)
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'glassware.jpg' (81 KB)
Preview of image 'glassware.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That says it all.
--
Wind the Frog!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As real as this looks, something tells my brain it isn't. I wonder what?
Perhaps I expect the reflection of the camera man, or I figure that things
wouldn't be so immaculately clean in RL. At any rate, that is one excellent
job Kari. Good work. Source us! :)
BTW, are you talking about falloff 1000+?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
very very nice!
is it a little grainy? (or is that me)
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
i really would like to see the source if possible..
where could we get it?
thanks
darrell miller
"Kari Kivisalo" <ray### [at] engineer com> wrote in message
news:3B9C02F9.13F6A849@engineer.com...
>
> Photons and exponential falloff in interior seem to work in beta 1 :)
>
>
> _____________
> Kari Kivisalo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
>
> is it a little grainy? (or is that me)
I like to experiment with different film grains. Now I used
fast film. Also the glass dye is grainy because the manufacturer
uses a cheap process :)
When David Buck (the original pov author) said in the beta group
he would like to see more groovier demo scenes I decided to give
it a try. The vase is a Rhino mesh but it shouldn't be too difficult
to make it a lathe. Now the render time is 9h on 1GHz AMD and the
focal blur still needed some post work.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b9c1068@news.povray.org>, ben### [at] catholicorg says...
> As real as this looks, something tells my brain it isn't. I wonder what?
> Perhaps I expect the reflection of the camera man, or I figure that things
> wouldn't be so immaculately clean in RL. At any rate, that is one excellent
> job Kari. Good work. Source us! :)
>
> BTW, are you talking about falloff 1000+?
>
My ..., how can you criticize an image like this, Tony? It is really
more realistic than I think I have ever seen made in POVRay, except a
few, of course :)
It is fantastic!
--
Regards,
Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo escribió:
>
> Photons and exponential falloff in interior seem to work in beta 1 :)
Wow! I've just here a vase very similar to this one (in green), and it
looks really like you rendered it. The only thing is that this one (the
real one) has much more bumps and little faults (bubbles). But the light
behavior is perfect, specially on the bottom.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My ..., how can you criticize an image like this, Tony? It is really
> more realistic than I think I have ever seen made in POVRay, except a
> few, of course :)
>
> It is fantastic!
I agree, but you can still see that it's CG, and I'm trying to get people to
think about why it does.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote in message
news:3b9c1068@news.povray.org...
> As real as this looks, something tells my brain it isn't. I wonder what?
> Perhaps I expect the reflection of the camera man, or I figure that things
> wouldn't be so immaculately clean in RL.
I agree - there's something about it that shouts "rendered" but I can't put my
finger on it...
Are the reflections too regular maybe? In RL reflections tend to be more
smeared. Or it might be something as simple as too-regular placing of the
objects...
> At any rate, that is one excellent
> job Kari. Good work. Source us! :)
>
Hear, Hear.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b9cc91d@news.povray.org>, ben### [at] catholicorg says...
> > My ..., how can you criticize an image like this, Tony? It is really
> > more realistic than I think I have ever seen made in POVRay, except a
> > few, of course :)
> >
> > It is fantastic!
>
> I agree, but you can still see that it's CG, and I'm trying to get people to
> think about why it does.
>
Then explain to me how you see/feel that it is CG and not RL! If that
should be only the reflections, I could imagine a surrounding that
causes just that reflection. If it is too perfect: masters of
glassblowing certainly very nearly approachef perfection, certainly in
modern times. Or you have something else perhaps that points it out.
To me it is just very RL :-) I wish I could make anything like it...
--
Regards,
Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote :
>
> To me it is just very RL :-)
My lovely wife, who just happened to walk by while I was looking at it,
said, "Nice photo". Sometimes I think we are too picky.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I only worked on this one day and wanted to see if it would
be a cool demo scene. Seems like it is.
I can probably make it look more real but it's going to be challenge
to keep the render time down.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Then explain to me how you see/feel that it is CG and not RL! If that
> should be only the reflections, I could imagine a surrounding that
> causes just that reflection. If it is too perfect: masters of
> glassblowing certainly very nearly approachef perfection, certainly in
> modern times. Or you have something else perhaps that points it out.
Like I think I said before, I'm not saying it isn't nearly perfect, but
something in my brain wispers "CG" to me. The thing that sticks out the most
is the lack of the reflection of the cameraperson. And something about the
background or the focal blur just isn't right. I can't exactly say what, but
I feel it. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3b9d1abc@news.povray.org Tony[B] wrote:
> The thing that sticks out the most
> is the lack of the reflection of the cameraperson.
When I do things like this in the studio, I try everything to no be in
the image.
> And something about the background or the focal blur just isn't
> right.
Although the focal blur is not wrong, this is the kind of image where I
would adjust the plane of focus to be parallel with the vases and not
with the film-plane.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would like to see the image without focal blur.
I think that scenes like this should go in the POV distribution.
Excellent work.
Regards, Alberto.
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
> I only worked on this one day and wanted to see if it would
> be a cool demo scene. Seems like it is.
>
> I can probably make it look more real but it's going to be challenge
> to keep the render time down.
>
> _____________
> Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Like I think I said before, I'm not saying it isn't nearly perfect, but
> something in my brain wispers "CG" to me. The thing that sticks out the
most
> is the lack of the reflection of the cameraperson. And something about the
> background or the focal blur just isn't right. I can't exactly say what,
but
> I feel it. :)
I guess I'll come to your defence:-) I too feel that it still looks a bit
rendered. I think it has to do with the focal blur in the background the
fuzzy edge of the table doesn't look quite right. But otherwise it is the
best glass I have ever scene.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas Lake" wrote
: I guess I'll come to your defence:-) I too feel that it still looks a bit
: rendered. I think it has to do with the focal blur in the background the
: fuzzy edge of the table doesn't look quite right. But otherwise it is the
: best glass I have ever scene.
:
I think you hit it, Thomas ... of course, in RL, we don't notice the
focal blur ... our eyes adjust and bring each section we view in focus.
But it seems even too much for a photograph, exp with the scene being
as bright as it is. You would expect to have a high f-stop and a large
depth-of-field. That's what gives me that "feeling" that Tony talks of.
Having said that .... it's beautiful !!!!!
--
Y
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Lake escribió:
>
> > Like I think I said before, I'm not saying it isn't nearly perfect, but
> > something in my brain wispers "CG" to me. The thing that sticks out the
> most
> > is the lack of the reflection of the cameraperson. And something about the
> > background or the focal blur just isn't right. I can't exactly say what,
> but
> > I feel it. :)
>
> I guess I'll come to your defence:-) I too feel that it still looks a bit
> rendered. I think it has to do with the focal blur in the background the
> fuzzy edge of the table doesn't look quite right. But otherwise it is the
> best glass I have ever scene.
Hmmm... I've done some RL test here, and seems to mee that refractions
on the glass do not shows focal blur, at least in direct vision (don't
know in a photo). That, of course, doesn't means this is not a great
demo scene (which is his purpose, isn't?).
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3b9d52c3@news.povray.org Y wrote:
> But it seems even too much for a photograph, exp with the scene being
> as bright as it is.
You're comparing with small film camera's, for large film 8"x10" you
can very well have this depth of field.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>
> Hmmm... I've done some RL test here, and seems to mee that refractions
> on the glass do not shows focal blur
If you would have used a camera then you would have seen the focal blur.
I rendered the table edge area again with
aperture 5
blur_samples 100
confidence 0.9
variance 0.0
and didn't use Photoshop to blur the edge.
http://www.pp.htv.fi/kkivisal/glassware_dof.jpg
There was a sharp edge when I used variance 1/128^2 as suggested by Warp.
http://www.pp.htv.fi/kkivisal/dof_edge.png
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 03:02:01 +0300, Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
>Photons and exponential falloff in interior seem to work in beta 1 :)
I've read some posts in this thread and I saw what Tony is taking about
when I first looked at the image, and now that soemone else has seen it
it looks quite exagerated: I'll explain.
On the lefthand sholder of the purple vase the colour seems to fade beyond
the outline of the glass, it's also visible in the other vases but a bit
more prominent in the purple one. It's asthough you've given the glass it's
colour with media but made the media container bigger than the actual vase.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
2:01pm up 16:14, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
>
> On the lefthand sholder of the purple vase the colour seems to fade beyond
> the outline of the glass
It's the combination of focal blur and the reflection of the white
background.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote in message
news:3b9c1068@news.povray.org...
> As real as this looks, something tells my brain it isn't. I wonder what?
>[snip]
It's the table top. The subtle reflection of the vases is *too* perfect. A small
bump or something to break it up just a bit would improve it. And for a nice
shiny new table like this, I think something very subtle would do. Just enough
to cancel out the equally subtle perfection. A smudged fingerprint or a small
scratch or two somewhere wouldn't hurt either.
I must add though, since I spend more time 'studying' photorealistic techniques
than actually 'practicing' them, my observation is more from analysis and
observation than experience. I hope one day I can demonstrate skills of your
level.
--
Batronyx ^"^
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ingo wrote:
> in news:3b9d1abc@news.povray.org Tony[B] wrote:
> > The thing that sticks out the most
> > is the lack of the reflection of the cameraperson.
>
> When I do things like this in the studio, I try everything to no be in
> the image.
This goes a bit philosophical, but I think this comes close to the
essence of the challenges of the ray-tracing: When defining scenes, be
try to reproduce all the defects and incompletinesses of the real world,
while in most real world activities and photography we try to reduce the
same defects to minimum. Maybe some day these goals reach each other
:-).
--
/"\ | iki.
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign | fi/
X Against HTML Mail | zds
/ \
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.scene-files/19028/
http://www.pp.htv.fi/kkivisal/glassware2.jpg
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
